Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic

[Sam Flynn]

Then you should be able to connect the majority of other murders that happened in Jewish parts of London with Jews also.

I was responding specifically to your point about the killer's move from Berner Street to Mitre Square.

Yet even the Ripper case doesn't have that.

Quite.

[Batman]

I was responding specifically to your point about the killer's move from Berner Street to Mitre Square.

Quite.

I think that move was as deliberate as going to Goulston St., when he could have gone anywhere else.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah yeah, I am not suggesting you did anything deliberate, I am just wondering why some are missing because it would comprise approx another 50% of the sample population.

Indeed, but not in the specific case of the vicinity in which Annie Chapman was killed, where gentiles outnumbered Jews by three to one. Even if this stretch of Hanbury Street was unusual, it begs the question of why... (see my earlier post).

[Sam Flynn]

I think that move was as deliberate as going to Goulston St., when he could have gone anywhere else.

In that part of town, "anywhere else" stood a good chance of having a high number of Jewish residents and/or connections , too.

[Batman]

In that part of town, "anywhere else" stood a good chance of having a high number of Jewish residents and/or connections , too.

Sure, but the randomness of this has to be considered along with all the other 'coincidental' anti-semitic evidence. When you have a single low probability event (say a coincidence) that is one thing, and acceptable, but this particular view that all the anti-semitic elements of the JtR case are just coincidences, is not a single low probability view. It is a string of low probability events put off as just coincidence.

The problem here is that a low probability coincidence is a low probability of happening. So what is the probability of multiple low probability coincidences happening? In most cases you don't add the probabilities, you multiply them. Meaning the overarching explanation that these are all just coincidences is of such extremely low probability as to be the least probable explanation. Meaning coincidences isn't a great position to be in when the evidence starts stacking, which is what it does in this case. Even if one of them wasn't low probability (say your version) you still have all the others compounding on top of it.

[Sam Flynn]

The problem here is that a low probability coincidence is a low probability of happening

There wasn't a low probability of finding Jewish connections in an area of London that had boasted a large Jewish population for decades, if not centuries.

[Batman]

There wasn't a low probability of finding Jewish connections in an area of London that had boasted a large Jewish population for decades, if not centuries.

Like I said your model can have that as a high probability but it still compounds with all the other necessary coincidences to object to a JtR connections with anti-Semitic facts.

Your first horse might be favoured to win but you have also guessed all the other positions also. What is the probability of that happening?

Extremely low. You would bet against it they are so low.

It's almost like saying all the canonical murders are by different hands and just happen to resemble each other because Whitechapel was a violent place.

[Sam Flynn]

Like I said your model can have that as a high probability but it still compounds with all the other necessary coincidences to object to a JtR connections with anti-Semitic facts.

In that part of London, the probability of hitting an area with some Jewish connection or other approaches 1.0, so we can practically rule out location as a significant factor. I'm sure you're familiar with this map*



This is the core of Ripper territory encompassing all the murders apart from Mitre Square, where the map unfortunately doesn't extend. The pink streets have between 25-50% Jewish residents, light blues 50-75% Jewish, medium blues 75-95% Jewish, and dark blues 95-100% Jewish. Indeed, the only streets where gentiles predominate are coloured dark red, and there really aren't many of those. As I've said before, finding at least some Jewish connection in respect of the canonical Ripper murders is almost like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel.

(* Granted, this map was compiled in 1899 and, things could - and would - have changed over a period of a decade or so, but I'd have expected the overall picture to have been broadly similar in 1888.)

[Sam Flynn]

[Are we] suggesting [the Ripper] wandered the East End randomly, hoping to find a prostitute (or two prositututes) standing next to structures with Jewish conotations?

This comes from a longer post RJ posted on another suspect-based thread, but I think the question is equally relevant to this discussion, regardless of who the Ripper might have been.

[Abby Normal]

This comes from a longer post RJ posted on another suspect-based thread, but I think the question is equally relevant to this discussion, regardless of who the Ripper might have been.

i don't think so. he just took advantage of the situation the night of the double event to implicate jews, as did hutch.

[Batman]

As I've said before, finding at least some Jewish connection in respect of the canonical Ripper murders is almost like shooting gefilte fish in a barrel.

You can have high probability areas, sure.

However how exactly does that comport with probabilities for...

1. A man shouts out an anti-semitic remark during a murder that is linked to several others.
   
2. A bloody apron piece is thrown with graffiti written over it that is to incite anti-semiticism.
   
3. That both murders would have these anti-semitic connections occur within a timeframe that can be explained by the same person fleeing one crime and ending up being in the vicinity of Eddowes coming out of the drunk tank?

Let's say there is a 50/50 chance of each happening. The overall chances of all three happening (and they did happen) is not 50%.

It is 50/50 for each one.

1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 0.125 or 12.5% chance of all three happening together. 50% has become 12.5% because coincidences/chance/random variables stack like this. Just like rolling a dice.

Let's say your coincidence is a 90% chance of walking through a Jewish district.

That's the 4th coincidence.

1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 9/10 = 0.1125 or 11.3% which is even less than 12.5%

This is the point I am trying to make. That for each anti-semitic piece of evidence, the chances of them being random are extremely low and the more there are, the less the chances of it all being a random event.

P.S - Just one more thing. JtR was a serial killer and the probability of a serial killer in any given area around the globe is infinitesimally small because they are extremely rare. That all of these events are themselves attached to such a low probability causation (JtR) is itself a good indicator and if something appears related, it probably is.

[Bridewell]

Can we keep suspect-driven thinking to one side, please? This thread is only a few posts long, and I'm already sensing confirmation bias in one or two of them.

You are not alone.

[Sam Flynn]

You can have high probability areas, sure.

However how exactly does that comport with probabilities for...

1. A man shouts out an anti-semitic remark during a murder that is linked to several others.
   
2. A bloody apron piece is thrown with graffiti written over it that is to incite anti-semiticism.
   
3. That both murders would have these anti-semitic connections occur within a timeframe that can be explained by the same person fleeing one crime and ending up being in the vicinity of Eddowes coming out of the drunk tank?

This assumes that the Ripper (a) killed Stride and (b) wrote the GSG, but I don't make those assumptions, and I don't need to for the purpose of this discussion. I'm interested in whether there's any substance in the idea of killer's having wilfully used antisemitism as a diversionary tactic across the murders as a whole, not just on the night of the Double Event. Even in that context, the demographics alone (see map above) indicate that we shouldn't be surprised if Jewish connections to both murders might easily be found, even if such thoughts never crossed the killer's/killers' mind at all.

[Bridewell]

My recollection is that the Gentile witnesses describe a Jewish (or foreign) suspect and the Jewish witnesses describe a Gentile. JtR (assuming that's one individual) must have been either Gentile or Jewish but clearly can't have been both. Therefore one group or the other was mistaken, possible because no-one wants to believe that a serial killer is someone like themselves. Did JtR go round telling people who he was? Almost certainly not, so the likelihood is that neither the IWMEC members nor anyone else (himself excluded) knew who he was. Yes there were synagogues all over the East End but there were also churches. I think it more likely than not that the killer was Gentile but, if he was violently ant-Semitic, why did he not attack Jewish women?

[Batman]

This assumes that the Ripper (a) killed Stride and (b) wrote the GSG, but I don't make those assumptions, and I don't need to for the purpose of this discussion. I'm interested in whether there's any substance in the idea of killer's having wilfully used antisemitism as a diversionary tactic across the murders as a whole, not just on the night of the Double Event. Even in that context, the demographics alone (see map above) indicate that we shouldn't be surprised if Jewish connections to both murders might easily be found, even if such thoughts never crossed the killer's/killers' mind at all.

Stride was murdered. A fact. The GSG was found above the bloody apron. A fact.

Your position on these is that you do not have to accept that these facts are connected to the crimes to make your point.

However, they exist and require an explanation.

Meaning your explanation would be that they are random, coincidences.

Meaning you are assigning multiple coincidences to dismiss them.

However, the probability of multiple coincidences happening is always lower as the probabilities stack as I demonstrated the last time. So overall you may be dismissing a clue because they are not the same regular probabilities as walking into a Jewish area in Whitechapel.

Your story goes like this... there is no connection between JtR and anti-Semitism. It is all just a coincidence. Both locations are a coincidence (first coincidence). Lipski being shouted is a coincidence (second coincidence). Anti-semitic graffiti is a coincidence (third coincidence). "We shouldn't be surprised if Jewish connections to both murders might easily be found."

Yet we should be surprised to find that Lipski is shouted at one murder scene and that anti-semitic graffiti is located near blood evidence at another even though both scenes had Jewish connections by location.

Of all the words in the dictionary that could have been shouted out, you have Lipski.

Of all the graffiti that could have appeared and of all the places JtR could have dumped the bloody rag, he hit on anti-semitic graffiti.

Of all the ways Stride could have been murdered, she looks like a Ripper victim who whose assailant was disturbed.

Of all the times in the evening JtR could have struck, he struck Eddowes in the same window of time that someone else would have done had they walked towards the city from Berner St.,

Of all the times these could have happened not even linked by location and time, they happened that night.

Saying that's all because loads of Jews lived in Whitechapel doesn't really give one confidence in dismissing evidence stacking like that.